After watching the film 12 Angry Men, I had to watch it again to appreciate the art of persuasion. The progression from “I just wanna talk” to convincing the rest of the 11 men that the boy is not guilty was brilliantly achieved by raising “reasonable doubt” in other’s minds. While the way “reasonable doubt” leads to the final verdict of “not guilty” is compelling, I have my own ‘reasonable doubts’ about the analysis that led to a clear 12–0 verdict. That’s why I am presenting two arguments against the common notion. Just like Henry Fonda‘s character, I wanna talk it over!
So, let’s talk.
Authenticity of the old man:
The first mic-dropping moment occurred in the film when Juror 8 (Davis) proved that, with all the noise from the El tracks, the old man on the second floor (who lives directly underneath the room where the murder happened) couldn’t have heard the sound of the body dropping. It was also demonstrated that the old man’s claim about seeing the murdered boy climbing down the stairs was false, as he couldn’t have reached the right place with that old body of his within 15 seconds.
The first argument is quite solid. No question there. But it’s also worth noting that when something falls on the upper floor, we generally hear the noise through the vibration of the floor, not from the window. Therefore, it is not proven that if a Superman-sized body (the 6’2” tall father who was murdered) falls to the ground, it would be impossible for a person living directly below to hear the sound despite the extra noise from the window.
However, my main concern is about the second argument: that the old man couldn’t have walked twelve and forty-three feet within 15 seconds. I completely agree with that. Call me crazy, but I believe it doesn’t prove he was lying. Although the old man swore it wasn’t more than 15 seconds, he could have been mistaken. Of course, that weakens his credibility, but hear me out.
To prove his point, Juror 8 recreated the scene, demonstrating that there’s no way the old man could have reached the main door in 15 seconds. Now think carefully: the entire jury didn’t realize how long it took Davis (Juror 8) to reach the marked point; they probably thought the timing would be around 20 seconds or a little more. This is why everyone was greatly surprised when they heard it was 41 seconds. It was evident that none of them could guess the correct time!
If the entire smart jury couldn’t estimate the time correctly, how can we expect a troubled old man to give an exact time? Isn’t it possible that by the time he reached the main door, he believed it was only fifteen seconds?
And the most absurd part was that everyone argued about whether it was within 15 seconds or not without acknowledging that this doesn’t prove the old man was lying about witnessing the murderer. Providing information about the time span that is only 26 seconds less than the actual timing doesn’t necessarily prove that his claim of witnessing the murderer is false.
Authenticity of the eyewitness:
The strongest argument that convinced the remaining jurors that the boy was guilty was the eyewitness. A woman who lived across the building claimed she saw the murder happen and screamed afterward. Her timing was right, and it was also proven in court that the crime scene was visible from her window.
However, by proving that the eyewitness didn’t have a 20/20 vision and wasn’t wearing any glasses during the time of witnessing crime, Juror 9 convinced everyone that the witness was unreliable and the boy was not guilty. I believe this was the most absurd argument in the film from the “not guilty” side. Ironically, this very argument worked as the trump card at the end. To understand why this logic is flawed, we need to learn a little about how eye problems work.
Most common eye conditions involving focusing or seeing objects are myopia and hypermetropia. Myopia, or nearsightedness, occurs when light rays that should be focused on the retina are instead focused in front of it. As a result, a viewer fails to see an object from afar without glasses but can usually see objects close to them clearly. So, if a murder is happening 60 feet away, a person with myopia who isn’t wearing glasses won’t be able to recognize the murderer.
Hypermetropia, on the other hand, is quite the opposite. A person with longsightedness or hypermetropia won’t see objects clearly that are 25 centimeters or closer without glasses but can usually see distant objects clearly. So, if a murder is happening 60 feet away, with or without glasses, a person with hypermetropia would be able to recognize the murderer more accurately than others.
Here, my question is: how were all the jurors so sure that the woman couldn’t recognize the murderer? How did they know she didn’t wear glasses for hypermetropia? Even if the woman wasn’t wearing glasses, it doesn’t prove she was lying.
Moreover, unlike that old man, she didn’t have any motive to give false testimony against the boy. Therefore, the fact that the whole jury was convinced the boy was not guilty seems absurd, and they should have been more responsible in making their decision.
In conclusion, I believe there is a lot to consider before making a grand decision like this. Just as we cannot send an innocent boy to be electrocuted, we cannot set a murderer loose either. This is why I believe that whether the boy is truly guilty or not cannot be decided without much longer deliberation.
